Right — that’s why I’m calling it source‑available. I’m mainly testing user behavior around distribution, not trying to define what’s ‘open’ or not.

I’m not trying to prove which license is better — too many variables, like you said. I’m just testing how different models change user behavior: who clicks, who downloads, who ignores. It’s more about distribution patterns than software quality.

Thanks for the perspective — I’ll take it into consideration. I still need to learn more about licensing and monetization models anyway.

Thanks for the perspective — I definitely need to learn more about licensing and how these things work in practice.

For this project I’m mainly testing distribution models. My only restriction is redistribution — people can read and modify the code for personal use. I’m also cautious about someone copying or commercializing it, so this is mostly a learning exercise for me.

My main restriction is redistribution — people can read and modify the code for personal use. Since the default with no license is already “all rights reserved”, this project is mostly a test for me. I’m also cautious about someone copying or commercializing it, so I’m treating this as a learning exercise about licensing and distribution.

Thanks for your perspective. From my point of view, making the code visible gives users the ability to read it and modify it for their own needs — the only restriction is redistribution. For this project that felt like a reasonable balance while I’m experimenting with distribution models.

Source‑available still lets people read and modify the code for personal use — they just can’t redistribute it. For me that’s a reasonable model for small tools, even if there’s always a risk someone will copy it. This project is mainly a distribution experiment.